Los Angeles daily herald., 1887-09-19
THE TAx-LEyY.
Proceedings of the state Board Of
E0ualizatfOu.


So much interest is taken here in
the valuation Of Los Angeles property,
and the action of the State Board OF
Equalization, that the proceedings Of
that body had on the 18th insts, -
ported verbatim below will be I'D
carefully by all taxpayers in the
county. 1t cannot be disguised here
that the action of Mr.. Dunn will be
viewed with disappointment by hosts
of his warm friends here. While no
one will question the honest inten-
tions OF the Controller, many will
wish he had been better qualified
to sit as q member of the State Board
of Equalization, SO far as knowledge
of our property goes. His statement
that Los Angeles has for years escaped
paying its Just portion of State taxes
is peculiar, to say the least. This
county has always paid much more in
proportion to the real value of the
property than San Francisco, Alame-
da, Santa Clara or San Mateo coun-
ties. Mr.. Dunn doubtless does not
know this; but as doubtlessly he
ought to know it.
Following is the proceedings refer
red to-:
Mr. Gaffey moved that Los Angeles
be reduced to $50, 10000
Seconded by Mr.. Wilcoxson, who
stated that he seconded the motion for
the purpose of bringing the matter
before the Board.
Motion lost. Ayes-Gafey, Sloss; |;
noes-Dunn, Wilcoxson, Morehouse.
Mr.. Galley then moved that it be
reduced to $S5 900, 900.
Seconded by Sloss. Lost by the
same vote.
Mr.. Dunn now stated that if the
Board would postpone action until the
afternoon session, and vote on the
counties alphabetically, he might vote
for a very slight reduction in Los An
geles county.
To this Mr.. Gaffey agreed.
At the afternoon session, when the
Board was called to order, Mr.. Dunn
stated that he would not agree
to reduce Los Angeles county
ii Alameda or San Francisco were
raised; that he thought Mr.. Mason
had made a good assessment, and
that the county of Los Angeles had
for years escaped paying its just por-
tion of the State tax; that he felt like
sustaining Mr.. Mason, as he could
not figure out the county as assessed
at over GA per cent. that Mr.. Mason
was a sworn officer and had testified
before this Board that he had assessed
Los Angeles county at a very con-
servative cash value. Mr.. Gaffey
called attention to the fact that the
members of the Board of Supervisors
were also sworn officers, just as good
men as Mr.. Dunn thought Mr.. Mason
to be, and men of much larger exper-
ience in public affairs, and equally
entitled to belief by the Board.
Mr.. Dunn again stated that
if Alameda or San Francisco were
raised, he would not vote for any re-
duction; that he believed Mr.. Mason
had tried to do his duty, and if there
was not slight doubt in his mind,
he would not vote to reduce. How
ever, he thought if San francisco and
Alameda were not raised, he acould vote
for a slight reduction.
When Los Angeles was reached in
it's proper order, Mr.. Gaffey moved
that it be reduced 20 per cent. Sec
onded by Mr.. Sloss. Lost. Ayes:
Sloss, Gaffey. Noes: Dunn, More
house, Wilcoxon. Mr.. Gaffey then
moved that it be reduced Is per cent.
Seconded by Mr.. Sloss. Lost. Ayes:
Gaffey, Sloss. Noes: Morehouse,
Dunn, Wilcoxon. Mr.. Gaffey then
moved that it be reduced 10 per cent.
Carried. Ayes: Gaffey, Sloss, Dunn.
Noes: Morehouse, Wilcoxon.